Bioactive glass/polymer composite materials with mechanical properties matching those of cortical bone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stress shielding resulting from mismatch in dynamic mechanical properties contributes to the reduced stability of osseous implants. Our objective was to develop biocompatible composites having mechanical properties similar to those of cortical bone. Polymers of urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA, 0-20%) and composites containing bioactive glass particles (70% SiO(2), 25% CaO, and 5% P(2)O(5)), with or without silane treatment were prepared. Young's moduli of composites containing silane-treated glass (16 GPa) were significantly greater than those of composites containing untreated glass (12-13 GPa) or of unfilled polymers (5-6 GPa). Bioactive glass reduced water sorption by the composites and incorporation of silane-treated glass prevented HEMA-induced increases in water sorption. Osteoblast-like cells attached equally well to UDMA polymer and composite containing silane-treated bioactive glass. Thus, silane treatment improved the mechanical properties of bioactive glass composites without compromising biocompatibility. This material has a Young's modulus comparable to that of cortical bone. Therefore, silane-treated bioactive glass composites, when used as implant or cement materials, would reduce stress shielding and improve implant stability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".